House of Lords Reform
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. There are nine Members who wish to catch my eye before 4.30 pm, which is when I want to bring in the Front Benchers to wind up. That calculates at roughly 10 minutes each, so if Members can informally keep to about 10 minutes, that would be great.
European Union Referendum Bill
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. As Members can see, quite a few people still want to speak. The debate must finish at quarter to 2. If Members keep their contributions as short as possible, hopefully we will get everybody in.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“Our young people are no longer children, and they resent being treated as such. Our view is that, if we entrust them with responsibility, they will act responsibly.”—[Official Report, 23 January 1969; Vol. 298, c. 1034.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the late Lord Stonham during the debate that led to the voting age being reduced from 21 to 18. That was in 1969. The world has changed since then and so must we.
This debate is about enfranchising young people in one of the biggest decisions that will affect their lives. I want us to go further. One of my first acts as an MP was to introduce a private Member’s Bill on this issue. The Representation of the People (Young Persons’ Enfranchisement and Education) Bill would give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, while increasing political education. It is now unlikely to be debated and voted on. I sincerely hope that the Government will see sense today and support the Lords amendment. I have spoken with many Government Members who agree with me on this issue.
HMRC Office Closures
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am sorry but I must drop the speech limit to four minutes to ensure that we accommodate everybody.
The Economy
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I am going to start by imposing a five-minute limit on speeches. That may have to come down if there are too many interventions, but right now, to get all hon. Members in, the limit will be five minutes.
Bill Esterson
Of course we need to get rid of the deficit so that we can start reducing the debt, but it must be done in a way that is sustainable, and that can only happen if we grow the economy.
The Government have presided over the slowest recovery on record. Tax receipts are an indicator of the health and productivity—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. A conversation is taking place across the two Front Benches while a Member is speaking. Let us listen to him.
Bill Esterson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the Government have presided over the slowest recovery on record. Tax receipts are an indicator of the health and productivity of the economy, and they fell as a result of the financial crisis. In the United States, Germany, France and Canada, they had returned to pre-crisis levels by 2013, while in the United Kingdom they remained 15% below those levels.
Meanwhile, the Tories have claimed that the financial crisis was the result of public spending—the result of recruiting nurses and doctors, and building new schools and hospitals. In fact, spending in this country was below the average among similar advanced western economies. The crisis was caused by an actual financial crisis, not by Government spending. The fact that the current Chancellor supported Labour spending plans before the crisis says what needs to be said about the claims that have been made ever since. Conservative Members know that the crisis was a financial one, not a Government one. They also know that the Chancellor was calling for less regulation of the banks, not more, in the run-up to that same crisis.
The fact is that in 2010 we had half the level of unemployment, half the number of home repossessions, and half the number of business bankruptcies that we saw during the Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, precisely because the Labour Government intervened to support and protect people, businesses and jobs. The economy was recovering strongly in 2010 as a result of the stimulus injected by that Government, but it came to a juddering halt with the emergency Budget of June 2010, when investment in capital infrastructure projects was stopped. In 2010, other countries continued their stimulus package for far longer, and businesses, jobs and the wider economies of those countries saw the benefits.
So what should happen now? Let us look at what businesses say. They say that they want to see investment in infrastructure, energy, transport, broadband and, especially, skills. They say that they need those skills so that they can grow and pay good wages. That is what the CBI says, it is what the EEF says, and it is what the Federation of Small Businesses says. When businesses want to grow, they invest. They understand the need to invest in new equipment, property and skills. They develop a business plan. They invest capital and pay it back from the proceeds of growth. Households do something similar, whether through student loans to invest in skills or borrowing money to buy a house; they invest for the future. We take out a mortgage typically over about 25 years and the bank or building society works out whether we can afford the interest payments and the capital repayment over the term of the mortgage. Government should invest in the future, just as business does, and just as homeowners do.
The lack of an industrial strategy is clear in how the steel industry has been abandoned. The Government do not seem to believe in having a business plan for the economy at all. They do not believe in investing for the long term or in following the good practice of businesses in seeking a return on investment in the form of growth and increased tax receipts as the way to higher living standards and deficit reduction. The Government say that they will not borrow money at all and won a vote in this House to confirm their view. The Chancellor used to say that fiscal responsibility charters were the mark of a lack of confidence in a Government’s own policies; not any more, however, because they forced that through the House. The “fiscal irresponsibility charter”, as it is better known, is the equivalent of the Government saying that if they were a householder they would not take out a mortgage to buy a home and they would have to buy a house out of their annual salary. If this Government ran a business, they would not take out a loan to buy a new van or a new piece of machinery.
The Government have signed deals with the Chinese Government to build and run our new nuclear industry. They are happy for foreign Governments to invest in this country, but not for our own to do so. That is a strange way to do business, because in the end these sums of money will have to be repaid, it seems, through much higher energy prices paid by those very same people the Government say they worry about in terms of the deficit. This is a Chinese form of private finance initiative by any other name.
Let us have a debate about borrowing, the best value for money and the best way of investing in the future of this country. Let us not rely on a charter that is economically illiterate and undermines economic success and prosperity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am sorry, but before I call the next speaker I am going to have to drop the speech limit to four minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am sorry to say that I have to reduce the time limit for speeches to three minutes for the final Back-Bench speakers. I would be grateful if interventions were kept to zero or were very short.
Royal Bank of Scotland
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon
No, because I want to give the Minister as much time as possible to respond.
It is incumbent on the Minister and the Chancellor to set out why they are moving ahead with the sale. What evidence does the Minister have that it is the right thing to do? This is the first opportunity for a full parliamentary debate on the decision of the Chancellor to privatise RBS since his announcement to the City at the Mansion House in June. He did make a statement the following day, but informing the House was clearly something of an afterthought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) clearly spelled out. At the Mansion House, the Chancellor announced a share sale even if it meant a financial loss to the taxpayer. The 5% stake sold on 3 August has already realised a loss of £1 billion, and some calculations suggest that the total losses if the entire stake is sold in this way could be about £13 billion, which is almost a third of the £45.5 billion total cost of the bail-out.
The Government have provided no real evidence of why RBS should be returned to the private sector in its previous form or why it should happen now. A 13-page report by the Rothschild Group and a two-page letter from the Governor of the Bank of England have been mentioned. The authors of the Rothschild report stressed that they had
“not sought to address the question of whether the government should sell its stake in RBS, but rather when it should do so.”
In other words, the review did not consider the full range of policy options. Will the Minister elaborate on how moving RBS shares from public to private ownership will promote financial stability, and on whether the relevant Bank of England Committee has endorsed that view? Will she publish any evidence she has received in support of that view?
It is welcome that the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, has asked to see the advice provided by UKFI to ensure that the taxpayer, as shareholder, is getting good value from this Government-owned company. I support that call. Is the timing of this sale in the interests of taxpayers or bank customers, or does the Chancellor just want to sell off another state asset quickly to make his borrowing figures look better? Was this decision taken purely for ideological reasons, or is it based on expert, independent advice? Will the Minister explain how the Chancellor arrived at his decision? In line with the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), will the Minister share the evidence, if she has any, with Members of the House?
I will turn to alternative models and structures for RBS and the future of British banking. I ask the Government to consider undertaking a full review of UK banking that questions how financial institutions have operated before and since the crash, and what other models might be considered to diversify the sector and deliver for the country by strengthening the economy.
There has been a much needed discussion of banking practices and reform over the past five years. We have had Lawrence Tomlinson’s report, Sir Andrew Large’s report on RBS’s independent lending, Sir John Vickers’ Independent Commission on Banking, and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the work of the Treasury Committee, both under the excellent leadership of the right hon. Member for Chichester, to name but a few.
Given how badly things went wrong and the problems that still exist at the bank, the question we must discuss today is how we can do it better. We need to know not only why RBS failed, but whether it is delivering for the British economy now, and, if it is not, how we can do it better.
Labour was right to bail out RBS, but how has it operated since the Government became the majority shareholder? RBS has been bailed out, but there are still major problems with its operation, as the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) indicated in his speech. It has cut more than 30,000 staff since 2008, many of whom were backroom staff on about £20,000 per year. It is closing branches faster than any other bank, and 90 of those it has closed this year were the last branch in town.
The Tomlinson report said in 2011:
“Returning RBS and Lloyds to full private sector ownership in their current form would be a return to the banking landscape of 2003, possibly with even less competition… Given the lack of any real change in the banking sector, there is nothing that will stop 2018 being the same as 2008 unless radical action is taken now.”
The Andrew Large report found that RBS was failing SMEs. He said:
“A perception has risen among some SMEs that RBS is unwilling to lend.”
I want to take this opportunity to touch on how RBS has been treating businesses. The House will recall the Backbench Business debate on 4 December last year on the Financial Conduct Authority redress scheme, in which hon. Members raised the serious concerns of businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) stated:
“The only thing that is consistent and transparent is that the banks that caused the financial crash are profiting from selling products such as interest rate hedging products, which were bought by a company in my constituency, the Flanagan Group, and have caused it great difficulty.”
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) talked about one of his local businesses, DK Motorcycles, which had been “badly let down” by RBS, but had
“finally escaped the clutches of RBS”.
He talked about
“people from small businesses who feel bullied by their banks”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 480-84.]
Information that I have seen this week shows that the serious concerns of businesses such as Flanagan’s have not gone away. I therefore want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she will meet me, concerned MPs like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton and businesses such as the Flanagan Group in his constituency to discuss the behaviour of RBS and what can be done to resolve the situation.
That leads me to the question that was put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) of whether selling RBS in its current form represents good long-term value for the taxpayer, taking into account all the economic costs and benefits. Is the Minister aware of those who say that the low price of RBS shares represents a belief among market participants that the reforms to guarantee its future financial health have not yet been concluded? Is the Minister satisfied that all necessary steps have been taken to return RBS to a state where it will not be in trouble again? Finally, is the economy best served solely by private shareholder banking, or is there a case for a more diversified sector that includes publicly owned and directed institutions, mutuals, co-operatives, social enterprises and regionalised banking? With so many fundamental questions yet to be answered, it is right that we engage in a wider review of the UK’s financial sector that considers the case for establishing new models of banking that might better serve our economy.
In conclusion, there are many alternatives. It has been proposed from a number of quarters that RBS be broken up to deliver regional banks, including by the Tomlinson report, the New Economics Foundation, Civitas and ResPublica, as Opposition Members have mentioned. We must discuss how regional banks can help to rebalance the economy—perhaps the Chancellor took the opportunity while visiting Germany to look into that.
It is our responsibility to map out the best way forward for UK banking, so that it delivers for the electorate and the economy as a whole. That means suspending sales of shares in RBS, which give away taxpayers’ money to private shareholders. It is incumbent on the Chancellor to explain why he thinks that is the right thing to do, and that means engaging with a real review of the banking sector and alternative models that will deliver a diversified and more resilient economy. How we treat RBS now will demonstrate whether we have learned the lessons of the crisis—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reaching the conclusion of his conclusion because we are way over time and there is a full debate to follow. If he could finish his speech now, I would be grateful.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
I hope you will indulge me with a little time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to respond to a thoughtful and well-subscribed debate that has focused on the future of the banking system in this country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on suggesting this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on securing time for it on the Floor of the House.
The 15 contributions that we have heard highlight the importance and impact of our banking sector, and show how integral it is to our long-term economic plan. I assure the House that a key element of that plan is a strong, healthy, more competitive and diverse banking sector. When the Labour Government acquired RBS, it was the largest single bank bail-out in the world at more than £45 billion—the price that was paid is a matter of historical public record. It was only ever intended as a temporary privatisation to restore financial stability to our banking sector, and I remind colleagues that in 2008, Gordon Brown stated:
“The Government will not be a permanent investor. Over time we intend to dispose of these investments in an orderly way”.
RBS is very different now from how it was then, and it has been restructured to focus on banking in the UK. It has shrunk its investment bank, and it recently completed the disposal of its US business, Citizens. The creation, by carving out RBS branches in England and Wales and NatWest branches in Scotland, of the historic Williams & Glyn brand will mean 314 challenger branches—more than twice as many as recommended by the hon. Member for Edmonton.
Seven years on, despite starting the process of selling shares in the summer, the UK Government—and therefore taxpayers—still own 70% of Royal Bank of Scotland. The easiest thing would be to leave RBS in state hands and duck the difficult questions, but no one in this debate has argued that the situation we inherited in 2010, with large chunks of failing banks in taxpayer hands, is something that we should maintain for ever. The right thing to do for the strength of our economy and for taxpayers is to start selling off our stake as part of a phased disposal programme. That is part of our long-term economic plan to bring down national debt and secure a brighter future for hard-working people across the country.
The hon. Lady was not a Member in the last Parliament, but I am sure she will recall that in June 2013 the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), considered various options for dealing with the legacy of RBS as part of its wider review into the banking sector. Those included a radical restructuring of RBS and the creation of a number of regional banks. That option was dismissed by the Commission, which noted
“how difficult, expensive and time-consuming it can be to separate integrated activities”
of a bank.
The PCBS recommended that the Government undertake a review into the option of splitting RBS into a good and bad bank, and we acted on that. In November 2013 following the publication of our findings, RBS set out plans for the creation of an internal “bad bank”. It has now set out its new strategy to focus on its core British business. As I mentioned, it committed to sell off more of its overseas business, simplify its operations, shrink its investment bank and use the additional capital to support the British economy.
By the summer of this year, the strong progress RBS had made in implementing that plan had led us to a clear decision point. That is why, in July, the Chancellor sought the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England regarding the Government’s shareholding. It was the Governor’s view that
“public ownership has largely served its purpose”
and that
“it is in the public interest for the government to begin to return RBS to private ownership.”
He went on to say
“there could be considerable net costs to taxpayers of further delaying the start of the sale,”
and that
“Continued public ownership without a foreseeable end point runs risks, including limiting RBS’ future strategic options and continuing the perception that taxpayers bear responsibility for RBS’ losses.”
The Governor added:
“The Bank of England believes the interests of the people of the United Kingdom are best served by a vibrant, resilient and privately owned banking sector”
and that
“a phased return of RBS to private ownership would promote financial stability, a more competitive banking sector, and is in the interests of the wider economy.”
A lot of Members mentioned competition and choice. The financial services sector is now fundamentally stronger thanks to the Government’s reforms. A central part of the reforms has been to inject extra competition and choice into the banking sector, and specifically to help new challenger banks to enter the market. I mentioned already RBS’s process of divesting a new challenger bank, Williams & Glyn, but that is in addition to creating another eight challenger banks during the previous Parliament, including TSB, Metro, Virgin Money and Tesco Bank. During the election, we committed to ensuring 15 new banks would receive banking licences in the life of this Parliament. We are promoting competition between banks by boosting and helping to deliver the current account switch service. We have put competition at the heart of the regulatory system.
In the interests of time, I will respond to a few of the points made in the debate. On the FCA’s review of the Tomlinson report, which was mentioned by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), my understanding is that the FCA review should be published between now and the end of the year. I will keep Parliament informed if I hear differently.
A number of colleagues spoke favourably about the German banking system. It is worth noting, however, that the German banking system also required £70 billion of capital injection, as well as £100 billion of guarantees, during the financial crash.
Colleagues mentioned a range of other important points. I can reassure the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) that we think ring-fencing, separating the actions of retail banks from those of their investment banking colleagues, is an important part of strengthening the regulatory system.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned the bonus culture. He will know that that was rampant under the previous Labour Government. It was brought very much under control under the previous Government, and that continues under this Government. He also said that we do not all want a state-owned bank run from Whitehall. I can only agree.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) made some important points, with which I have great deal of sympathy, about the bank branches in his very large and very rural constituency. I pay tribute to the staff and pensioners of RBS, of whom he has 105 in his constituency. I have a wide range of points to make about the specific towns he mentioned, but in the interests of time it is probably better if I write to him.
Today’s debate was very much on the future of the banking system and the importance of having a strong, healthy, diverse and competitive range of choices in our banking sector for customers and businesses. I recognise that the issues raised in the motion are extremely serious, but the Government cannot support its proposals. They run contrary to all the evidence presented to us. Instead, we will continue to put in place our long-term economic plan, which is bringing stability and competition to the UK banking sector and delivering a better deal for hard-working people across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to consider suspending the further sale of its shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland whilst it looks at alternative options; and believes that this should take place in the context of a wider review of the UK's financial sector and that such a review should consider the case for establishing new models of banking, including regional banks.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Before I call Robert Flello to move the motion on the dog meat trade, I point out that we have very limited time, because of the length of the previous debate. I am not going to apply a time limit, but if the mover of the motion and the Front-Bench spokespersons can take about 10 minutes and everybody else five minutes, including interventions, we will get through everyone before 5 o’clock.
Tax Credits
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I am going to impose a time limit of seven minutes. Thirty Members are trying to catch the Chair’s eye and there are also going to be three Front-Bench contributions. We will start with seven minutes, but shorter speeches would be very welcome.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Personal independence payment: timing of payment—
‘(1) Schedule 10 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(1), at start insert “Subject to paragraph ( ),”
(3) At end of paragraph 1(1), insert the following new paragraph—
“( ) Where a person in receipt of disability living allowance meets the requirements of section 82 of the 2012 Act his or her entitlement to disability living allowance shall terminate immediately and entitlement to personal independence payment shall commence on the same day.”’.
This New Clause aims to enable claimants of DLA who are transferred to PIP due to terminal illness to receive their first PIP payment immediately after being transferred. Currently claimants must wait four weeks from their final DLA payment to be made and then another four weeks to receive their first PIP payment.
New clause 4—Review of application of sanctions—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must before the financial year ending 31 March 2016 provide for a full and independent review of the sanctions regimes attached to working-age benefits, including but not limited to Jobseekers Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Income Support, to determine whether they are effective and proportionate for meeting the Government’s objectives.
(2) The terms of reference for the review must include consideration of—
(a) the application of sanctions to lone parents with dependent children;
(b) the application of sanctions to claimants who are disabled;
(c) the effectiveness of sanctions in moving claimants into sustained work; and
(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant.”
To provide for a full, independent review of the operation of the sanctions regimes attached to out of-work benefits, to determine the effectiveness of sanctions in moving claimants into sustained work as well as any adverse impacts on particular groups.
New clause 5—Report on impact of benefit cap reductions—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament before the end of the financial year ending with 31 March 2017 a report on the impact of the benefit cap reductions introduced by this Bill.
(2) The report must include an assessment of the impact on each of the measures of child poverty defined in the Child Poverty Act 2010.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review impact of lower benefit cap after 12months.
New clause 7—Changes to the benefit cap—
Changes to the Benefit Cap shall not be made until the Secretary of State has carried out an assessment of the impact on its effect on poverty and laid a report before the House of Commons, The Scottish Parliament, The Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.”
New clause 9—Universal credit and carers—
Claimants in receipt of universal credit who are responsible carers for children are not subject to work focused interviews or work preparation requirements until their youngest child starts school.”
New clause 10—Changes to age of eligible claimants of housing benefit—
The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows. After section 130(1) insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make provision about eligibility for housing benefit in respect of the age of a claimant except by primary legislation.”.”
New clause 11—Entitlement to housing costs element of universal credit for 18-21 year olds—
‘(1) Entitlement to the housing cost element of Universal Credit shall not be restricted for those 18 to 21 year olds who fall into the following categories—
(a) those who have previously been in work;
(b) a person who lives independently;
(c) those with a disability or mental health problem receiving Employment Support Allowance or Income Support;
(d) those with dependent children;
(e) pregnant women;
(f) those who are owed a rehousing duty under—
(i) section 193 of the Housing Act 1996;
(ii) section 9 of the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003;
(iii) section 73 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014;
(g) those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are being assisted by local authority housing teams;
(h) those who are living in statutory or voluntary sector homelessness accommodation;
(i) those who have formerly been homeless and have been supported by voluntary or statutory agencies into accommodation;
(j) those who have formerly been homeless between the ages of 16 and 21;
(k) a person without family or whom social services have found that a home environment is not suitable for them to live in; care leavers and
(l) those leaving custody.
(2) Within three months of section [Entitlement to housing costs element of universal credit for 18-21 year olds] of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must, by regulation, provide definitions of—
“a person who lives independently”;
“risk of homelessness” and
“a person without family”.”
New clause 12—Review of application of sanctions—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must on commencement of this bill, commence a full and independent review of the sanctions regimes attached to working-age benefits, including but not limited to Jobseekers Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Income Support , to measure the impact on—
(a) to lone parents with dependent children;
(b) claimants who are disabled;
(c) moving claimants into continuous work;
(d) homeless;
(e) protected characteristics;
(f) long term health conditions;
(g) claimants with mental health disorders and
(h) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant.”
Amendment 35, in clause 6, page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (2)
Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 9, line 2, leave out “£23,000 or £15,410” and insert “£26,000 or £18,200”
Amendment 37, page 9, line 3, leave out “£20,000 or £13,400” and insert “£26,000 or £18,200”
Amendment 38, page 9, line 15, leave out paragraph (a)
Amendment 39, page 9, line 17, leave out paragraph (b)
Amendment 40, page 9, line 19, leave out paragraph (c)
Amendment 41, page 9, line 21, leave out paragraph (d)
Amendment 42, page 9, line 27, leave out paragraph (f)
Amendment 43, page 9, line 39, leave out paragraph (k)
Amendment 44, page 9, line 41, leave out paragraph (l)
Amendment 45, page 9, line 44, leave out paragraph (n)
Amendment 46, page 9, line 46, leave out paragraph (o)
Amendment 47, page 9, line 48, leave out paragraph (p)
Amendment 48, page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (6)
Amendment 56, page 14, line 15, leave out Clause 13
Amendment 29, in clause 13, page 14, line 26, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State may not lay an order under section 31 to bring the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) into force until he has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report giving his estimate of the impact of those provisions on persons who would otherwise be entitled to start claiming the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance.
(3B) No order bringing subsections (2) and (3) into force shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament”.
Amendment 31, page 14, line 29, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must make provision for additional personalised and specialist employment support in connection with the changes made by subsections (1) to (3).
(5B) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the following—
(a) the forms of personalised and specialist employment support;
(b) the means by which a diverse market of suppliers for personalised and specialist employment support can be developed in local areas; and
(c) information for local authorities seeking to improve local disability employment rates.”
Amendment 20, page 14, line 39, leave out Clause 14
Amendment 57, page 14, line 39, leave out Clause 14
Amendment 58, page 15, line 1, leave out Clause 15
Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 15, line 4, leave out paragraph (a)
Amendment 60, page 15, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) in section 19(2)(c) for the words “under the age of 1” substitute “who has not yet started primary school””
Amendment 61, page 15, line 9, after “2,”, insert “3 or 4”
Amendment 62, page 15, line 10, leave out paragraph (c)
Amendment 63, page 15, line 13, leave out paragraph (a)
Amendment 64, page 15, line 13, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in regulation 91 (claimants subject to work-focused interview requirement only), for the word “3” substitute “5 or when the child starts primary school”;
(b) in regulation 91A (claimants subject to work preparation requirement) for the words “3 or 4” substitute “who has not yet started primary school”;”
Amendment 65, page 15, line 15, leave out paragraph (b)
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) might be inadvertently trying to mislead the House in that the living wage is actually £9.15 an hour, according to the Living Wage Foundation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I am afraid that I did not catch the intervention by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but I am sure that she was not trying to mislead the House.
Jo Churchill
Indeed I was not, and I apologise if I did. I was merely trying to make the point that the current minimum wage is £6.70 and not £6.50 as was stated earlier. We are moving towards a higher-wage economy. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) is in the middle of her speech, and this is a debating point rather than a point of order, so can we please continue?
Helen Whately
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Labour’s new clause calls for an impact assessment. There have already been several impact assessments, but the strongest one of all was that made by the thousands of people in May who voted for a Conservative Government on a manifesto that pledged to build a stronger economy with more jobs and lower taxes, to move from deficit into surplus, to protect public services such as the NHS, and to bring down the welfare bill. Labour Members oppose these reforms. They want to keep on taxing people and using that tax to subsidise below-the-breadline wages.
It is time to break that cycle, and these reforms will do that. They include the national living wage, from which 2.7 million people will receive a direct increase in income and at least 3 million more will get a knock-on benefit. Would Labour Members seek to delay that? If so, they would already be too late, because the benefits are already being felt. Wages are going up, and 200 companies have committed to increasing their lowest rates of pay in advance, including Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Lidl, IKEA, Asda, and British Gas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), let me remind the House that, while this is a very interesting and lively debate, 12 Back Benchers and the Minister are still to speak before the knife comes down at 6 pm. If interventions could be short and kept to a minimum, that would be great, because there are still quite a few Members whom we wish to call.
Jo Churchill
I was fortunate enough to sit on the Public Bill Committee, and I also sit on the Women and Equalities Committee. That has shown me two things. I recently spoke to women in Oldham running a voluntary group, and the leader said to me she did not feel what we were doing was wrong, because she felt these measures helped marginalised minority women break out of the cycle of being kept in their homes, improved their English and helped them understand how their families interact with the wider world, asking women to find work and not rely on—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech, not an intervention, so I ask her to resume her seat.
Helen Goodman
People can take different views on this matter, and I have just been describing the view I take with respect to lone parents.
I want to make one final point. Conservative Members have repeatedly said that the Opposition have no proposals for savings and they are the only ones who are concerned about the deficit. The Opposition voted against the inheritance tax cuts, which will benefit the richest 60,000 households, and we went into the last general election with a proposal to cut the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners. Personally, I think that would be a better thing to do than hit disabled people once again.
Finance Bill
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is speaking through the Chair. I have made no proposals today.
Craig Mackinlay
My sincere apologies, Madam Deputy. [Interruption.] You have taken me way off track now.
In conclusion, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central made an appeal earlier for a message or plea to come from this place to the European Union. I think we have heard that from many Labour Members, too. I am afraid this goes back to the very old times of taxation without representation. Messages are all very well, but surely this sovereign place should be able to choose to set the rate of sales tax or VAT on products such as tampons and sanitary towels. I am afraid that it rather reduces the status of this House to one of being a colony of old, pleading with an empire power.
Tax Credits
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Select Committee, I point out that we have less than three hours left and more than 50 Members wishing to catch my eye. Dropping the speech limit down to two or three minutes seems ridiculous at this stage. There will also be a maiden speech following the contribution of the Chair of the Select Committee, and I do not want to impose a limit until after that. Can we please keep interventions to an absolute minimum and speeches as short as possible, so that I can put the time limit on as late as possible? With that, I call Frank Field.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am very sorry to say that I am going to impose a five-minute speech limit from now on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The list of speakers seems to be growing rather than shrinking and almost 40 Members still want to speak, so before I call the next speaker I shall drop the time limit down to three minutes in the hope we can get as many in as possible.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
Natascha Engel Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley
Government Members should stop going back in time. I have just referred to the fact that the Prime Minister promised before the 2010 election not to raise VAT. [Interruption.] Look at your record. You’re in government. You’re defending your Bills.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Lady is using the term “you” which refers to the occupant of the Chair, not Government Members.
Barbara Keeley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is really helpful. It is sometimes easy to forget.
I have made the point and I am prepared to come back to it again and again. In five years, there have been two serious broken pledges that have cost the British public dearly.
Let us get back to the Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I did not make the diversion. Let me be clear, Labour in opposition wholeheartedly supports the principle of not raising taxes for working people. The Minister has just questioned me on this. During the election campaign, it was the Labour party that first pledged not to increase national insurance contributions. In fact, we did it before the election campaign, because the pledge was made on 25 March. As such, we will not be opposing the Bill today. Regardless of that, however, there is no doubt that this tax lock has become the height of gimmickry. It was said to be such during the election campaign and it remains so today.
Let me give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members present, some quotes relating to the tax lock. On 29 April, the Financial Times, lamenting what it saw as the level of gimmickry coming all too often from the Conservative campaign, put in its leader:
“What is more of a shock is the stream of gimmicks and poor policies coming from the Conservatives…arguably the silliest idea yet came this week when David Cameron proposed an act of parliament that would make it illegal for a future Tory government to raise various taxes to close the deficit: VAT, income tax, and national insurance…the UK fiscal deficit is still high. Removing the option of tapping revenue streams that in aggregate raise more than £350bn for the exchequer would make the challenge needlessly harder.”
Harriett Baldwin
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance about whether we ought to be discussing something that Parliament settled last week or the Second Reading of this Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
The hon. Lady is experienced enough to know that if she wishes to raise a point of order, she can do so by way of a point of order. However, the point she raises is a matter for discussion, so I invite the shadow Minister to respond, if she wishes.
Barbara Keeley
I think that the whole range of the tax regime and national insurance is under discussion today.
Given that we hear no assurances that there will not be further increases to insurance premium tax in this Parliament, I want to make it clear again that we support the principle of not raising taxes for working people. That is why we do not oppose the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, before the election campaign started properly, we pledged not to raise national insurance contributions, so this could rightly be described as our idea.